Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Don't Show Obama This Report About Who Really Is Behind The Syrian Chemical Attacks

    Don't Show Obama This Report About Who Really Is Behind The Syrian Chemical Attacks

    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/30/2013 10:33 -0400

    As we showed mere days ago, it appears the truth of who the real puppet-master in the Middle-East is becoming plainer to see. The incredibly frank discussion between Saudi's spy-chief Prince Bandar and Russia's Putin exposed a much deeper plot is afoot and the following details from the actual people on the ground in the chemically-attacked region of Syria suggest Obama is playing right into the Saudi's plan. While Obama is 'certain' that the chemical attacks took place on al-Assad's orders, as MPN reports, "from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack."

    The narrative for public consumption is well-known and quite clear - it was all as-Assad's fault. And yet...

    As we showed mere days ago, it appears the truth of who the real puppet-master in the Middle-East is becoming plainer to see. The incredibly frank discussion between Saudi's spy-chief Prince Bandar and Russia's Putin exposed a much deeper plot is afoot and the following details from the actual people on the ground in the chemically-attacked region of Syria suggest Obama is playing right into the Saudi's plan. While Obama is 'certain' that the chemical attacks took place on al-Assad's orders, as MPN reports, "from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack."The narrative for public consumption is well-known and quite clear - it was all as-Assad's fault. And yet...

    Via MPN,


    ... from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

    “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

    Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

    Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

    Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

    “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

    “When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

    A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

    “We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

    Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

    The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.

    More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.
    About the report authors: Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and the Associated Press. Gavlak has been stationed in Amman, Jordan for the Associated Press for over two decades. An expert in Middle Eastern Affairs, Gavlak currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East for AP, National Public Radio and Mint Press News, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. Contact Dale atdgavlak@mintpressnews.com Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently working on a master’s degree in journalism, He has covered events in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya. His stories have appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News, Gerasa News and elsewhere.

    For those who may have forgotten, here are the details that were exposed a few days ago...

    what are some of the stunning disclosures by the Saudis? First this:

    Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

    It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that "threatens the security" of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses "in the face of the Syrian regime." Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.

    But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:

    As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt's future.

    The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

    At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.

    Since we know all about this, it means no more talks, an implicit warning that the Chechens operating in proximity to Sochi may just become a loose cannon (with Saudi's blessing of course), and that about a month ago "there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate." Four weeks later, we are on the edge of all out war, which may involve not only the US and Europe, but most certainly Saudi Arabia and Russia which automatically means China as well. Or, as some may call it, the world.

    And all of it as preordained by a Saudi prince, and all in the name of perpetuating the hegemony of the petrodollar.


    Again we remind: Russia and Saudi Arabia account for 25% of global oil production, but far more importantly absent the Qatari natgas (and a potential pipeline crossing under a receptive Syrian regime - i.e., not Assad - and going into Turkey), Europe will remain beholden to every rate-hiking whim by Putin and Gazpromia.


    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...emical-attacks
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 08-31-2013 at 10:16 AM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Don’t Call This a Humanitarian Intervention

    Posted on 31 August, 2013 by clyde

    According to foreignpolicy in its failed bid to convince Parliament to support airstrikes against Syria, the British government issued a statement on Thursday, Aug. 29, outlining its legal justification for military action. In doing so, it claimed that its position is consistent with an emerging international norm of “humanitarian intervention.” Indeed such a norm, while not yet codified in international law, has begun to take shape in recent decades, evidenced in both international documents and the practice and rhetoric of governments. Britain’s legal position, however, inadequately reflects these international understandings about the “responsibility to protect.” Although it’s now largely moot, if the British position had been authorized by Parliament, it would have risked dangerously undercutting this emerging and still fragile norm, while simultaneously threatening the U.N. Charter regime. It is thus noteworthy that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry chose not to mention “humanitarian intervention” in his remarks on Friday, focusing instead on the need to enforce a taboo against chemical weapons. This makes sense, since the military campaign being proposed would not meet the standards by which humanitarian interventions are judged.

    The “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine encompasses far more than an imperative toward military intervention, but it does also allow the use of armed force to protect civilians (humanitarian intervention). This new “norm,” designed to be used in extreme cases, rests on six principles. Of these, Britain invoked only three, and war planners on both sides of the Atlantic have made a solid case only for two.

    The first is “just cause.” As the British government stated and many observers have reiterated of late, Syria is in a state of extreme humanitarian distress requiring immediate relief. There is strong evidence in favor of this argument. By any estimate, the civilian death toll at the hands of Bashar al-Assad’s regime is staggering, and millions have been displaced. The use of gas against civilians is seen by many to breach an atrocity threshold — killing hundreds of people (more than 1,400, according to U.S. government evidence). Even without chemical weapons, a strong case could be and has been made for doing something to stop the slaughter. But R2P also says intervention should be a “last resort” — Britain’s second stated principle — after diplomatic avenues are exhausted. Again, Western powers could make a strong case that this criterion has been met in the case of Syria.

    The British government also emphasized that a humanitarian intervention must use means “necessary and proportionate” to humanitarian aims. Here its position is trickier. Of course states are expected to conduct all wars in accordance with the humanitarian principles of necessity, proportionality, and discrimination. They are also expected to observe limits on the means and methods of combat. Would the limited strikes Western powers currently envision meet this standard? It’s not at all clear. In fact, the British NGO Article36.org has issued a letter to Prime Minister David Cameron raising concerns over whether use of explosives in densely populated areas could conceivably be understood as a proportional response consistent with humanitarian aims, given their widespread and predictable impact on civilians.

    This brings us to the three R2P principles British lawyers are forgetting — and the reasons, perhaps, that the United States has not invoked R2P in its justification for strikes. One is that a truly humanitarian intervention must have “right intention” — it must be designed for the express purpose of protecting civilians from predation at the hands of their government. But it is very clear that the military campaign envisioned is not really about protecting civilians from Assad or an ongoing civil war. Instead, as Kerry reiterated today, the goal is to enforce a weapons norm through a punitive strike. While this may well be a laudable goal in itself and may indeed do some good in reinforcing an important global norm, there is no evidence to suggest that it will have an immediate and beneficial humanitarian effect — indeed much to the contrary.

    Enter another important principle: that any intervention undertaken to protect civilians have a “reasonable likelihood of success” and avoid making things worse. Even if a Western strike were the most effective way possible to enforce the chemical weapons taboo — and this itself is debated — it is far less clear that such a strike would have a reasonable likelihood of success when it comes to the wider goal of protecting civilians. In fact, much data and analysis suggests the contrary. A recent study has found that intervening on behalf of rebels increases the number of civilians who are killed. While international relations professor Jon Western of Mount Holyoke College rightly points out that it depends on the type of intervention, successful missions have typically included robust mandates, ambitious goals, a willingness to stay the course, and significant resources from the international community subsequent to the invasion. Many involved regime change. In other words, the kind of intervention most likely to actually protect civilians is the polar opposite of the one now being proposed.

    Even if all these criteria were met — even if Cameron had been defending a well-deserved, last-ditch military campaign for the right reasons using appropriate means and with the best possible plan to sustainably mitigate rather than increase civilian bloodshed — it would still violate the R2P doctrine if it included the right to act unilaterally. Precisely because the humanitarian intervention norm runs afoul of the U.N. Charter and because fears are so great that it could be used as a smoke screen for wars of aggression, international support for this emerging norm has always been predicated on the idea that it would be used only where a broad multilateral consensus existed that it is the right thing to do.

    Consider state practice since 1990. The “good wars” perceived by the international community to have been legitimate cases of humanitarian intervention include operations in Somalia to protect food shipments, northern Iraq to protect Kurdish refugees from attack, Bosnia and Kosovo to end ethnic cleansing, and Libya to forestall a devastating siege. In each case, these efforts were undertaken by a wide coalition of governments deeply invested in the cause. Now consider cases where a single government asserted the right to act unilaterally for humanitarian reasons.

    When the Russian military entered Georgia in 2008, it claimed it was doing so to protect civilians. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 to “liberate its people from a tyrant,” the vast majority of states opposed this action as an ill-conceived violation of the U.N. Charter. Neither diplomats at the time nor analysts of political history include these incursions among the canon of legitimate humanitarian interventions. Whatever complex mixture of motives underlay these wars (and whatever mixture underlies “bona fide” interventions like Kosovo and Libya), it is multilateralism that constitutes a perception that a military intervention is legitimately humanitarian.

    This importance of collective action is reflected in the codified R2P principles as well. Although lacking the status of treaty law, the R2P doctrine has been laid out in several international documents. In each one, it states the importance of seeking prior U.N. Security Council authorization for action, subsequently calling emergency sessions of the General Assembly, and coordinating emergency operations through regional organizations on a multilateral basis. The 2005 World Summit Outcome document referred to governments’ collective “responsibility” to prevent atrocity. These documents do not confer a right upon individual states to decide for themselves. This explains why, despite a willingness to act without a Security Council authorization, the United States is bending over backward in its political rhetoric to emphasize the shared condemnation of Syria by allies in the region and around the globe. And it is particularly important as the United States gauges how to proceed with the military support of an important ally now out of the picture.

    Why is multilateralism so important? It is partly because R2P represents a deeply cautious and tentative compromise between two important sets of rules — the primacy of sovereignty and the primacy of human rights — each of which plays a vitally important role in promoting human and global security. Neither should be easily disregarded on a whim by a single actor. While human rights must be protected, the U.N. Charter system itself is a collective public good: It ended a bloody history of great-power war and has ushered in the longest era of interstate peace in human history. States rightly allow exceptions to these fundamental rules only in extreme cases.

    The rule that governments should collectively judge whether that threshold has been met is also a check on hubris. R2P channels collective outrage, but when push comes to shove collective reticence is often a canary in a coal mine. That key members of the international community — including countries like Turkey that have a valid self-defense argument due to refugee flows, and members of the Arab League that would be happy to see Assad gone — are unready to themselves take the lead would be viewed through an R2P lens as an indication that caution and deliberation is warranted. Does this mean inaction is the best policy? Maybe. Maybe not. But it does mean that unilateral intervention, even to ostensibly protect civilians, doesn’t make a war “humanitarian” in the court of global public opinion.

    http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/08/3...-intervention/

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Saturday, August 31, 2013

    Syria, Pipeline Politics, OPEC & the USDollar

    By: Jim Willie CB

    Syria is about the last gasp for the Petro-Dollar, the emergence of energy pipeline geopolitics, the rise of the NatGas Coop, the new dominance of Russian Gazprom, the eclipse of OPEC, the fall of the house of Saud, and a grand adjustment process in global commerce and banking. Refer to trade settlement outside the USDollar and diversification away from USTreasury Bond reserves management. It took some time to realize it, but the Cyprus bank incident was a misdirected attack against Gazprom. It failed. The entire Arab Spring movement, an ambitious disruptive project waged with foolhardy ambitions, has turned on itself. Egypt fell, its US puppet discharged. The entire North African region will be in flames soon. The USGovt interfered with a grand industrialization project for European industry, to be placed on North Africa intended to take advantage of cheaper labor, available minerals, nearby resources, and easy shipping. The resentment of Europe will show up in the future. The Middle East and Persian Gulf region is shifting its salute to Russia & China, as the noisy sectarian battles have been a common fixture since long ago. Bahrain has erupted. Saudi is clamping down and converting into an Islamic police state to create the Iran-Saudi repressive bobsey twins. Chaos is the longstanding objective of the USGovt in foreign policy infection, no change in decades.


    Syria is about a lot of things, most of which are volatile, many unsolvable. To be sure, the naval port of Tartus is valuable for the Russian Military, always eager to wrest a seaport. Like Lebanon, Syria is a hotbed stronghold for HezBollah, never to be taken lightly. They are mortal enemies to Israel, whose nations have exchanged covert violence for years. Syria might have tight relations with the Shiites of Iran, even some in Iraq. However, Syria represents the crossroads of many important shifting geopolitical roadways that pertain to the global financial structure and commercial systems. Syria is the tipping point for a Grand Global Paradigm Shift. It is the last stand for the Anglo Banker world. Syria will not go easily into the Russian camp, into the Gazprom fold, into the European energy market sphere. For if it does, the entire USDollar system of commerce and the USTreasury Bond system of reserves management will fall by the wayside and open a new era with Eastern dominance. But the Western powers cannot stop it. Clouds of whatever type do not halt pipeline flow, nor pipeline geopolitics.


    WHAT SYRIA MEANS
    Syria stands at the door to the emergence of the Eastern Alliance, the new dominant energy pipelines, a new payment system detached from the USDollar and Anglo banks. Syria stands at the door which controls some incremental European energy supply. Syria stands at the door to Gold Trade Settlement, with a transition step that brings more importance to commodity backed currencies and proper valid systems for trade. Syria means the pipelines strangle the USDollar. Syria means the end of the US system of IOU coupons that pollute the global banking system. Syria means the status quo is coming to an abrupt end. Syria represents a clash of East versus West, which has more commercial and bank significance than anything reported by the lapdog press. Notice the direct line from Iran through Iraq to Syria. The natgas of Iran reaches the Mediterranean Sea through Syria.





    RISE OF PIPELINE POLITICS
    Syria is the end port for what the Jackass calls the Shiite Gas Pipeline. It begins in Iran and ends at the Mediterranean seaport in Syria. It was designed to terminate at a Shiite friendly nation. Thus my informal name. Ironically, Qatar is fighting against the Syrian Assad loyalists, but the Qatari natural gas will be directed into the same pipeline. In the last year, a giant Persian Gulf gas discovery was made in a joint Iran-Qatar project. Syria is about the last gasp for the Petro-Dollar. It represents a climax in Energy Pipeline Politics. Quietly for the last 15 to 20 years, Russia has been building crude oil pipelines and natural gas pipelines from the Mother Russian lands to points in Europe and China and the Former Soviet Republics. They have been constructing modern LNG gas port facilities. They have been forging contracts to supply energy to countless nations. The US-led plans have been more interference than constructive. They have consistently attempted to obstruct, rather than to build with some justification of common benefit.


    The US news networks cannot tell why or how Syria is important relative to the USDollar. Most Americans cannot define money, let alone conceive of a Petro-Dollar defacto standard. They do not comprehend the global banking system having practices as an extension of Saudi crude oil sales in USDollars. They remember nothing of the Kissinger Arab Oil Surplus Recycle Pact into USTreasury Bonds and US big bank stocks. The focus should be on Pipelines and the closely related geopolitics. The focus should be on the eclipse of OPEC. The focus should be on the loss of Western Europe to the Russian fold, where natural gas supply will alter decisions. Notice the UK Parliament did not offer military support for the USGovt in Syria. They might have received a phone call from either Putin at the Kremlin or the CEO of Gazprom. Coming to a world near you is the NatGas Coop led by Gazprom. A regular feature in geopolitical decisions will be the integration of natgas supply to Europe and Great Britain.


    ECLIPSE OF OPEC
    Clearly heading out is OPEC and its influence. The dirty secret for ten years has been the depletion and decline in Saudi oil reserves. The water cut has surpassed 80% on a regular basis at Saudi oilfields. It is the percentage of water in produced "oil" wells. The interior pressures are dissipated. The Saudis are suffering from lost oil surplus, rising government debt, higher domestic energy costs, higher food costs, internal strife, fascist islamic rule, rising political prisoner population, and geriatrics at the throne. It sure would be good to know how King Abdullah returned from a coma after a few months, where his organs were declared defunct. Maybe like Saddam Hussein, he has some handy doubles. The OPEC nations in the last several years have become a loud disorganized gaggle of devious dealers who discount prices and lie on output on a regular basis. The cartel has no unity anymore. Their honorable Saudi core is disintegrating. The Saudi OPEC core is precisely the foundation to the Petro-Dollar and the justification for global banking systems being based in USTreasury Bonds. Coming online is the NatGas Coop. Coming online is gold trade settlement. Coming online is the BRICS Bank. Coming into prominent view is Gazprom, the leader of the NatGas Coop. It has some powerful strange bedfellows who deal in one currency, natural gas.


    CYPRUS INDIRECT ATTACK
    The news networks told of Cyprus being the site of bank crisis, account confiscations, the bail-in procedures creating a Western model, and resolutions. It took a while to realize, but the Jackass back in the March Hat Trick Letter noted the Gazprom angle and potential motive. The Jackass mapped out a Prima Facie case for motive on the Cyprus bank attack. It was a challenge to Gazprom and the Russian banking system, more than a Bail-in Model. It was an attempt to cut off the Russian encroachment into Europe with their Gazprom weapon, the most disruptive economic weapon seen in decades.


    Cyprus used to serve as the primary window for the entire Russian banking system, and the central bank too. All bank transactions from Russia went through Cyprus. The conclusion could be that the Bail-in procedure is a suicide pact for the West. It is a declaration that if accounting rules are to be enforced, and capital requirements enforced, then the big Western banks would slit their throats and force the vanish of private bank accounts. Ditto if the legal prosecution of big bank were to begin in earnest. They cannot pull that switch unless major banks are all dead gone, from grotesque contagion. Since Lehman failed, all the big Western banks are lashed together, much like sailors at sea on deck during a nasty storm. If one goes, all go. The banker elite needed to disguise their attack of Gazprom in Cyprus. They wanted to interrupt the progress made by Russia in Pipeline Politics. The public bought the false story, again, like they always do. They do not think beyond the first visible layer.


    FAILED USGOVT POLICY
    The USGovt lost on disruptions to Iran internet and undersea communication lines between 2004 and 2007. To be sure, the planned Iranian island center for trade processing never occurred, a success of sorts. The USGovt lost on Iranian sanctions. The rise of Turkey, India, and Chinese deals with unique payment systems have come to the table. Even the Japanese and South Koreans refused to play along. The entire workaround process served as a training ground for gold trade settlement. It will have a certain blossom, with the full weight of the BRICS nations behind the current initiatives. The US lost on Iran-Pakistan Pipeline, since China stepped forward, guaranteed funding for its completion, and even worked to extend the connected pipelines to the Western border of China for supply. The USGovt lost with its puppet named Mohammed Morsi, who was ousted in Egypt. The unspoken cause was food price inflation, not political discord as reported by the US news network minions. The USGovt won the Qaddafi's gold (144 tons) but with a grand backfire on the Libyan Embassy controversy. The Pentagon does not appreciate the sacrifice of Navy SEALS to deceit and hidden motives. The biggest failure by the USGovt could be the monetary policy at work by the US Federal Reserve. The QE bond purchase program has produced massive broad price inflation globally, in addition to rising energy costs, rising material costs, and rising related follow-on costs. It is difficult to find any USGovt or USFed policy of value, other than to serve the bank syndicate.


    NATGAS COOP
    The key to the future is seen on the margin of new power. It is the Natural Gas Coop. To date, it has no name. Curiously, its power might lie in the fact that it has no name, no central nexus. It is a de-centralized cooperative. But more accurately, it has a Russian core, a brain trust at Gazprom. It has a certain Kremlin command center, since a newfound strategic weapon. It is their greatest global weapon in decades. The strange bedfellows consist of Russia (home HQ of Gazprom), Turkmenistan (#2 natgas global producer), Iran (giant renegade producer), Qatar (biggest LNG star), and Israel (from Tamar Platform). The presence of Sunni Qatar from the Persian Gulf and US Fascist Ally Israel make for the odd mix. In June, the Israel Govt signed a deal with Russian Gazprom. It called for directing all surplus natgas output from Tamar to the Gazprom pipeline system, and the European market. The Israeli Economy will greatly benefit from the surplus revenue.


    Game over for OPEC and a guaranteed demise of the Petro-Dollar. Simply stated, Saudi Arabia is to OPEC, what Russia is to NatGas Coop. The phase out of OPEC is in progress, without much recognition. The emergence of the NatGas Coop is to be better understood in the near future. A tremendously important shift is taking place in energy geopolitics. The consequences will be rapid diversification out of the USTreasury Bond, colossal Indirect Exchange in asset deals, and broad abandonment (aka dumping). In the process, almost no buyers of USGovt debt will be visible, and the USFed will be leaned upon more fully for bond purchases. The Weimar machinery will strain to the limit. The USGovt debt default will occur, as the event has become more visible, a 2008 Hat Trick Letter forecast.


    DEMISE OF PETRO-DOLLAR
    Not 5% of Americans comprehend the defacto Petro-Dollar standard. They will when the Saudis must step aside and permit OPEC to be eclipsed by the NatGas Coop with its expansive global network of pipelines. The great USDollar devaluation will occur when the Petro-Dollar falls by the wayside. The result will be profound price inflation in the USEconomy.The fall of the Saudi regime is guaranteed eventually, and likely soon. The Saudis cannot play both sides (US & Russia) successfully. They will fail with both partners. The NatGas Pipelines are critical, as they wield enormous economic leverage and power. Together, the NatGas Coop phases out OPEC and assures the end of the USDollar as it is currently known and structured. Watch the Saudis soon indicate that non-USDollar payments are accepted for crude oil sales, like accepting GBPounds, Euros, Japanese Yen, even Swiss Francs. Watch the Saudis closely for various signals of impending doom, death signals. As energy sales move gradually, then rapidly, away from the USD settlement, the world will go through a transformation. The banking system will change in their foundations, one nation at a time, with diversification away from USTBonds. It is Game Over!!


    Syria is the last line of defense for the USDollar and the exalted position of OPEC. Syria is the potential recognized debut of the NatGas Coop in significance. It is all hidden, except to the Hat Trick Letter. In the new era emerging, Gold will prevail as the Gold Trade Standard is put in place. It will not be done with a stake in the ground from the banking system of the FOREX currency trading arenas. Therefore it is so dangerous to the status quo. My full expectation is that the USGovt will back off in Syria. The retreat will not be seen as a magnanimous gesture, but rather more like a bully backing down. Revelations will be very damaging on chemical weapons and the roles played. Roots to Saddam Hussein will be reviewed. Iran already has tens of thousands killed by chemical weapons over 20 years ago in a war waged with Iraq, with a hand from the Bushes. The United States leadership is in for some cold water in the face. The United States is due for some extreme isolation. The NatGas Coop will change the global map. It will open the door to the Eurasian Trade Zone for commerce, and open the door to the Gold Trade Settlement for finance. Some quantum leaps are in store and soon. Gold will emerge with a new Gold Trade Standard, whose price will shock most observers. Think multiples higher. Syria is a seminal event for gold.


    ————————————-
    Jim Willie CB is a statistical analyst in marketing research and retail forecasting. He holds a PhD in Statistics. His career has stretched over 25 years. He aspires to thrive in the financial editor world, unencumbered by the limitations of economic credentials. Visit his free website to find articles from topflight authors at www.GoldenJackass.com. For personal questions about subscriptions, contact him at JimWillieCB@aol.com

    SOURCE:
    http://news.goldseek.com/GoldenJackass/1377892800.php


    http://www.asheepnomore.net/2013/08/...-usdollar.html
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696


    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    OBAMA HITS GOLF COURSE AFTER ANNOUNCING NATIONAL EMERGENCY, REALLY?

    Posted on 1 September, 2013 by clyde

    According to Breitbart President Obama and Vice-President Biden held a rare press event Saturday in the Rose Garden to address the escalating tensions with Syria. President Obama said he was convinced Syrian President Bashir Assad had ordered a chemical weapon attack on his citizens and that the US, and the world community, must act in response. Obama called on Congress to authorize a military attack against Syria. A new foreign policy crisis now faces the US. After the press event, Obama and Biden went golfing.

    I’m not an expert in foreign policy, but I can think of a few things a President ought to do after requesting authority for a military strike on a sovereign nation. There are probably some Congressional leaders who ought to be briefed. There are likely one or two world leaders who would appreciate a chat about the US plans. No doubt generals in the military would have a thought or two about how things should proceed.

    An hour after announcing a potential new military venture in the Middle East, with unknown consequences, “5 Wood or 2 Iron” is the last thing I want on a President’s mind.

    http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/09/0...rgency-really/

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •